| commentid | objectid | typeid | userid | subject | comment | timestamp | parentid |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12086 | FreeCraft | games | -1 | Re: You can see what they're worried abo | s/patent/trademark/ | 2003-06-21 08:21:58 | 12085 |
| 12087 | FreeCraft | games | -1 | Re: You can see what they're worried abo | Just look at the screenshot posted for the project -- it's ALL Warcraft 2 graphics. This project was just an attempt to clone a game that can be bought for about $5. If they hadn't stolen EVERYTHING from Warcraft 2 and picked a name that didn't piggyback on the *Craft series success, they would have been fine. | 2003-06-21 08:29:48 | 12080 |
| 12088 | FreeCraft | games | -1 | FUCKING BLIZZARD | Subj :( | 2003-06-21 08:44:34 | 0 |
| 12089 | FreeCraft | games | 7998 | Sad | FreeCraft has improved a lot since I played it the first time in '99, and it offered a lot more than the original Warcraft2 did which I liked during the dark ages of DOS around '97. Specifically, Free Software game development and functional programming are what topics that FreeCraft has brought closer to my mind. It's a shame this C&D letter happened without prior communication. I've made very minor contributions once, but were still updating CVS regularly (last time as of June 10), and while lots of people bitch about the FcMP, I find the graphics quite usable, since they're free, and the original ones aren't. <br><br> Many people also commented that the name choice made it the project's own fault, but we've seen a lot of trademark-based cases in the past (most notably KIllustrator in my areas of interest), and there will be a lot more conflicts in the future. Since I don't assume legal departments have knowledge of Free Software principles, it would maybe make sense to educate them and find a better way of solving those problems, but then again I doubt they're interested. <br><br> I would not be surprised if in 5 years we look back and see that fewer and fewer young people made their work into the community - if I'd start with programming these days, I'd be scared off by all these trademark, software patents, TCB and whatnot talks. <br><br> Comments that FreeCraft has vanished are wrong; it will however not be likely that the wartool (WC2 graphics extraction) and the name and the screenshots featuring WC2 graphics will stay. Fortunately there's CCL to tune the game to make it act like the original game in case one needs it, but features such as growing woods are surely nice to have :) <br><br> Josef | 2003-06-21 08:53:59 | 0 |
| 12090 | FreeCraft | games | -1 | Re: You can see what they're worried abo | The screenshot was using the WarII data files idiot.. you need the original CD for those. | 2003-06-21 08:56:43 | 12087 |
| 12091 | FreeCraft | games | 7998 | Re: Sad | Oh and since there's a discussion about the state of Free Gaming is planned for LinuxTag 2003 Karlsruhe, this might be included as a topic. I cannot promise it though before next week. The main topic is the German youth protection law and how it affects free games, but since a representative of the entertainment industry has offered to join, this would well be a topic. (Hm, but doesn't seem like Blizzard or Vivendi are members of VUD.) Comments and/or feedback welcome. | 2003-06-21 09:01:59 | 12089 |
| 12092 | Battle for Wesnoth | games | -1 | Re: Nice, but still 0.1 | Ordinary 2nd level units (e.g captains) apparently can't advance either; I suspect the higher level units just aren't in place yet. I had a little trouble compiling on redhat linux 9.0. Managed to get it running with a little hand-tweaking of the code. (sorry, I would provide details but system is off-net so it's a pain). Also, I get a lot of minor display glitches with trailing characters confusing exp/hp numbers, e.g. exp 5/40 reading as 5/400 Needs more scenarios, obviously, but it's a nice start. Game rules/docs are needed, of course. Could use a random map generator, and a lot of tweaking of the interface (e.g. movement by keystroke, paging the map up/down). Looking forward to seeing future versions. | 2003-06-21 09:14:18 | 11990 |
| 12093 | FreeCraft | games | -1 | wtf!!! | Why not change the damn name, instead of shutting down the whole thing. I smell chicken. | 2003-06-21 09:29:34 | 0 |
| 12094 | FreeCraft | games | -1 | Re: You can see what they're worried abo | yeah... it can use the Warcraft 2 gfx... but it has its own thing though... i think Blizzard should have done that... for god sakes, its free.. nobody earns from it... except blizzard... like MAYBE, one guy liked Freecraft.. but the gfx sucks, so he buys a Warcraft 2 CD for his frecraft game... so what if they have *craft name... if i make a game called Witchcraft? they will sue me too? so they just sue everyone they find threatining? hey look, this game has a peasant! like warcraft. lets sue them! its a threat! lets shut them down so that they will buy our games instead of downloading the free games... wth? i think blizzard wasted more money on their lawyers... | 2003-06-21 09:44:40 | 12090 |
| 12095 | FreeCraft | games | -1 | law | <p>You are right that he is confusing intellectual output laws, but your understanding of copyright, patents, and *trademarks* is inaccurate, according to US law. Copyright last 70 years *after* the death of the creator, or a flat 95 years for a corporation. The copyright holder does not have to vigorously protect the copyright for it to remain valid. A holder can ignore infringment for years, then selectively bust any infringer he chooses. Patents last between 17 and 20 years. Patent holders do not have to vigorously defend their patents to maintain the right to send out cease and desist orders, but they must vigorously defend them to sue for monetary damages when someone willfully disregards a patent. Finally, trademarks last as long as the mark is actively used, and they *must* be vigorously defended to remain valid.</p> <p>Trade secrets are another area of intellectual output law that is often confused. Trade secrets are only legally defensible against corporate espionage-type acts. Once a trade secret gets out through legitimate means, it is no longer legally protected. (WARNING: IANAL but I can read.)</p> <p>So Blizzard must attack the use of *Craft, but they are not legally obliged to attack the game engine itself. It is disappointing to see them so standoffish toward Free Software. This is even worse than the bnetd case.</p> <p>I was almost willing to forgive them for bnetd, because they make such great games. Now it looks like I will never play Starcraft 2. Blizzard, you have lost at least one formerly loyal customer through these dispicable acts.</p> | 2003-06-21 10:01:09 | 12084 |